I have not seen a lot of hubbub about this, but I did hear he had proposed one, or parts of one.

I have not posted this concept, and wanted to provide it for you all to ruminate upon, or comment upon.
What is a reasonable budget, at this point? How can we recover from so much excess from our addiction and bingeing of spending of the past 8-10 years?
We have gone a long time without any reasonable budget, just spending and borrowing ourselves into oblivion. How can any budget overcome the last 10 years of splurging? Any attempt to correct the trends will ignite the borrowing rate, and the onerous debt we have now (which seems like no big deal because the inflation rate and borrowing rate are miniscule) to a whallopping whale when the rate nudges up to very small.

So, my idea was to use the last reasonable budget as a yardmarker, a gauge to compare with, which would be the last budget which could have possibly been balanced. Although many spending priorities defeated this aim, all budgets since this have never even pretended to try.
This is the 2006 Federal Budget, before the Rock The Vote Libtards invaded DC and strived feverishly to wreck the economy and borrow our grandchildren's taxes to fund the snowflake welfare excesses now.
So, all of the Defense, NASA, and useful functions of Federal Government which have starved and whithered since then, should point out the highest funding they have had during the past 10 years, and that would be a good goal to have as their spending.
All of the bloated welfare, entitlements, government waste should be compared to their 2006 levels, and if they want more than that, need to justify it. They created their own inflation of their dollars, so the change in the dollar is not a valid excuse.

I am not sure if percentage of the total budget or dollar amount would be the better comparison. Perhaps both.

I have not checked out how Trump's budget compares yet.

His budget was one of my greatest fears of his reign - has he declared bankruptcy 4 or 5 times?

But some of what I have heard so far seems reassuring.

What say you?

Also, feel free to provide specifics of what amounts Trump has proposed, and comparison to FY 2006.

Okay. The budget for the federal govt should be limited to what the federal govt is suppose to do, which is protect the states and their rights. That said, the feds also have a lot of money which isn't theirs, which they have to pay back

So. Mandatory spending.

Soc Sec, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, all of this is the citizen's money and has to be spent on them. Essentially, this is all insurance that came from your wages, civilian or military, and you didn't have a choice, but it is a product and the govt must deliver.

The other item here is the debt, best renegotiated, but there it is.

Discretionary.

I like to see military spending, because the military is a major investor in science and innovation. That said, I prefer to see it redirected to NASA or to infrastructure whenever possible so we can learn how to make faster trains and spaceships and not just bigger guns and bombs.

Other than that, I like to see investments in America, like grants higher education, I don't think the feds have any place in high school, as that's a free state program. But college has gotten out of control and while it should be fixed, we need an educated population in the meantime.

Any foreign aid should make sense, and not be a means of propping up some brutal regime. Any military matters should be covered in the budget, and not paid for by endless supplemental. I like corporate contracts for innovation and alternative energy, and any clean energy, but not to prop up dying corporations or dying industries energy or otherwise.

Wow.
I wasn't actually expecting a political dispute here, just a discussion of how to gauge whatever budget comes out of the White house or Congress, what would be a decent measuring stick to make comparisons to.

Quote:Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:

Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

What is a reasonable budget, at this point?

Okay. The budget for the federal govt should be limited to what the federal govt is suppose to do, which is protect the states and their rights.

Agreed. National Defense and Border Protection. Some may claim Sec State as part of National Defense, but Hilliary's and Swiftboat Ketchup's bloated, useless, bungling, and treasonous legacy needs a rollback until Defense (military) catches up.
Corollary obligation to Defense is Veterans Administration, which has been decimated and abused for the past 8 years, and covered up by the weaselly Dems.

Quote:

That said, the feds also have a lot of money which isn't theirs, which they have to pay back

So. Mandatory spending.

Soc Sec, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, all of this is the citizen's money and has to be spent on them. Essentially, this is all insurance that came from your wages, civilian or military, and you didn't have a choice, but it is a product and the govt must deliver.

What a hoot.
Social Security is nothing more than the Ponzi Scheme promised by the Democrats, swallowed whole by gullible marks (aka Libtards and other lefty voters), and promulgated by the Dem Party as a way to suck in voters until the bill came due and the Dems would explain that it was all a fantasy, there would never be a payout. Somehow they have continued to juggle this past that time.
The gullibility of the American Libtards does not make this any sort of critical spending, it's just inflation.
Same for the Ponzi Schemes known as Medicare and Medicaid.
Some gullible people call these "insurance" but the Constitution does not place the business of Insurance under mandated duty of the Federal Government.
These are not not critical portions of the budget, in reasonable terms - but they are politically sensitive and charged.

Quote:The other item here is the debt, best renegotiated, but there it is.

Now you are on track.
How do you plan on "renegotiating" it? You asking Trump to loan out the Grand Canyon to China for better lending rates? Or what?

Quote:Discretionary.

I like to see military spending, because the military is a major investor in science and innovation. That said, I prefer to see it redirected to NASA or to infrastructure whenever possible so we can learn how to make faster trains and spaceships and not just bigger guns and bombs.

You have a point, albeit misprioritized.
There are only 2 Departments within the Federal Government which return more value to the citizen tax-payer than the dollar spent. Last I heard DoD returned $1.06 and NASA returned $1.21 per Dollar spend. So, of course DOD was starved by Bobo, and he practically deleted NASA, telling us to hitch a ride on one of those exploding Russia Rockets.

Quote:

Other than that, I like to see investments in America, like grants higher education, I don't think the feds have any place in high school, as that's a free state program. But college has gotten out of control and while it should be fixed, we need an educated population in the meantime.

This fluff has no place on the PRIORITY LIST of balancing the Budget and PAYING DOWN OBAMA'S DEBT.
The best way to address this in the Budget is to delete the Department of Educamation by eliminating it's funding.

Quote:

Any foreign aid should make sense, and not be a means of propping up some brutal regime. Any military matters should be covered in the budget, and not paid for by endless supplemental. I like corporate contracts for innovation and alternative energy, and any clean energy, but not to prop up dying corporations or dying industries energy or otherwise.

Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Wow.
I wasn't actually expecting a political dispute here, just a discussion of how to gauge whatever budget comes out of the White house or Congress, what would be a decent measuring stick to make comparisons to.

Pretty sure that;s what I was giving: what I expect to find in a sane budget.

Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

National Defense and Border Protection.

I'm going to disagree on the border. I think that border patrol is a state issue, and to place federal troops on state soil to patrol it in any way is a federal overreach and threat to state sovereignty. I see the logical fallacy of my own position, but understand the competing constitutionalist pov: if you allow federal troops to patrol states, where does that end? (and yeah, i know, state sovereignty has been slaughtered, but they haven't revoked the consittution yet, so we can still dream)

Quote: Some may claim Sec State as part of National Defense, but Hilliary's and Swiftboat Ketchup's bloated, useless, bungling, and treasonous legacy needs a rollback until Defense (military) catches up.

Quote:Corollary obligation to Defense is Veterans Administration, which has been decimated and abused for the past 8 years, and covered up by the weaselly Dems.

It's part of the deal with hiring soldiers, so yes.

Quote:What a hoot.
Social Security is nothing more than the Ponzi Scheme promised by the Democrats

Not disagreeing. However, as a budgetary measure, it's paid for with FICA, so if they're collecting FICA, they have to give people their money back. You can't take that FICA cash and spend it on something else. I know they've been doing it for years, but that's still outside of the frame of a sane budget. It's like the Danegeld.

Quote:Same for the Ponzi Schemes known as Medicare and Medicaid.

Less sure about that. I think Medicaid, particularly, has its place as a state program. Sovereignty implies a state has a right to its own healthcare policy, which is one of the reasons obamacare was a disaster. (not defending mitt romney here, i think that's silly, but it really should be a state decision)
Medicare, yeah, it's similar, it's just their own money back again, as health insurance. Again, paid for by FICA. So, as a budget, yes, it should be there as long as the govt is still collecting the tax.

Quote:These are not not critical portions of the budget, in reasonable terms - but they are politically sensitive and charged.

I disagree. They're directly connected to the tax that is levied for them. All budgetary items should be like this. Defense should be paid for by defense tax, etc. That would tie the hands of creative accounting politicians.

Quote:Now you are on track.
How do you plan on "renegotiating" it? You asking Trump to loan out the Grand Canyon to China for better lending rates? Or what?

Debt falls into a couple of categories. First, there's money that we borrowed.

Like from China. The answer to that is we pay it back. If we can't do that we're no kind of capitalist.
Also, Bonds. Money borrowed from the American people, also has to be paid back.

Second, there's a type of assumed debt like the federal reserve, interagency
loan, etc. This needs to be written off. Some arrangement needs to be made to bury this.

Quote:You have a point, albeit misprioritized.
There are only 2 Departments within the Federal Government which return more value to the citizen tax-payer than the dollar spent. Last I heard DoD returned $1.06 and NASA returned $1.21 per Dollar spend. So, of course DOD was starved by Bobo, and he practically deleted NASA, telling us to hitch a ride on one of those exploding Russia Rockets.

The exploding Russian rocket think was an issue. They need to work on that. Maybe the Iranians can give them a hand.

Actually, I think the best US investment ois the govt research labs, like Argon. Similarly, the NIH. The entire field of medicine is pretty heavily dependent on it, and most of the time you can learn more fromthe NIH website than form your doctor. Also, there are many marvelous inventions at govt labs waiting to be implemented. It would be nice to see a matching grant program for implementing ideas that have already been invented.

Quote:This fluff has no place on the PRIORITY LIST of balancing the Budget and PAYING DOWN OBAMA'S DEBT.
The best way to address this in the Budget is to delete the Department of Educamation by eliminating it's funding.

I have issues with it, but I think the US has been very lax on education. I agree with the Soviet spy I posted. We've fallen into a false sense of security calling gender studies or race studies an education. Everyone doesn't have to study physics and chemistry, but if they don't, is it still an education? I mean, there are definitely a limited number of topics that comprise international competitive advantage and result in advancements for America. It's in the interests of the govt to invest in having a more practically educated population. Something competitive with Europe, or China, India. I am also distressed by this reliance of young people on calculators. this shouldn't be an acceptable way to test mathematical abilities. But govt. spending on education also shouldn't be used to line anyone's pockets. It should be like medicare: people should be reimbursed in accordance with what they actually spend.

I sincerely believe anyone can choose to be not dumb, study, and then follow a line of study that is constructive and will help themselves and their country, and then should be able to get govt assistance if there is money available. We have state and federal programs, and I used them in order to go to college.

As for the debt, as I said, do away with that which you can. It's not all Obama's, it's been a problem for a while.

Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Wow.
I wasn't actually expecting a political dispute here, just a discussion of how to gauge whatever budget comes out of the White house or Congress, what would be a decent measuring stick to make comparisons to.

Pretty sure that;s what I was giving: what I expect to find in a sane budget.

So dop you agree that using FY2006 is one of the best points of comparison?

Quote:

Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
National Defense and Border Protection.

I'm going to disagree on the border. I think that border patrol is a state issue, and to place federal troops on state soil to patrol it in any way is a federal overreach and threat to state sovereignty. I see the logical fallacy of my own position, but understand the competing constitutionalist

There ws no competing constitutionalist issue - they agreed that the Federation should protect the borders of the Federation from those outside the borders, not having anything to do with patrolling the borders within the Federation. Good that you admit to your failed logic.

Quote:pov: if you allow federal troops to patrol states, where does that end? (and yeah, i know, state sovereignty has been slaughtered, but they haven't revoked the consittution yet, so we can still dream)

Quote: Some may claim Sec State as part of National Defense, but Hilliary's and Swiftboat Ketchup's bloated, useless, bungling, and treasonous legacy needs a rollback until Defense (military) catches up.

Quote:Corollary obligation to Defense is Veterans Administration, which has been decimated and abused for the past 8 years, and covered up by the weaselly Dems.

It's part of the deal with hiring soldiers, so yes.

So there are the core sectors which need to have budget increases, or immunity from reduction.

Quote:

Quote:What a hoot.
Social Security is nothing more than the Ponzi Scheme promised by the Democrats

Not disagreeing. However, as a budgetary measure, it's paid for with FICA, so if they're collecting FICA,

which goes into the General Fund, and then Dems steal from the General Fund, and like all Ponzi Schemes, there comes a time when the suckers lose out. There has never been a SS Lockbox. The SocSec has never been fully funded through any FICA or other contribution - it is strictly paid out as a bribe from Dems to gullible voters. We don't need this hokum now.

Quote: they have to give people their money back. You can't take that FICA cash and spend it on something else. I know they've been doing it for years, but that's still outside of the frame of a sane budget. It's like the Danegeld.

WHAT??? You agree it has never worked and will never work, and then say we should start making it work now? THAT is not sane.

Quote:

Quote:Same for the Ponzi Schemes known as Medicare and Medicaid.

Less sure about that. I think Medicaid, particularly, has its place as a state program.

State programs are fine, just keep it completely out of the FEDERAL BUDGET.

Quote: Sovereignty implies a state has a right to its own healthcare policy, which is one of the reasons obamacare was a disaster. (not defending mitt romney here, i think that's silly, but it really should be a state decision)
Medicare, yeah, it's similar, it's just their own money back again, as health insurance. Again, paid for by FICA. So, as a budget, yes, it should be there as long as the govt is still collecting the tax.

refer to 2 above points.

Quote:These are not not critical portions of the budget, in reasonable terms - but they are politically sensitive and charged.

I disagree. They're directly connected to the tax that is levied for them. There is no tax levied for them - there is no accounting formula, flow of accountable funds. That is a fantasy, stop sticking your head in the sand.

Quote:All budgetary items should be like this. Defense should be paid for by defense tax, etc. That would tie the hands of creative accounting politicians.

Quote:Now you are on track.
How do you plan on "renegotiating" it? You asking Trump to loan out the Grand Canyon to China for better lending rates? Or what?

Debt falls into a couple of categories. First, there's money that we borrowed.

Like from China. The answer to that is we pay it back.

NOW you are catching on. WE need to pay down the Federal Debt. To do that we need to eliminate the Federal Budget Deficit, reduce the Federal Budget, reduce the Federal Spending, allow the Revenues to increase and overtake the spending.

Quote:

If we can't do that we're no kind of capitalist.
Also, Bonds. Money borrowed from the American people, also has to be paid back.

Second, there's a type of assumed debt like the federal reserve, interagency
loan, etc. This needs to be written off. Some arrangement needs to be made to bury this.

Quote:You have a point, albeit misprioritized.
There are only 2 Departments within the Federal Government which return more value to the citizen tax-payer than the dollar spent. Last I heard DoD returned $1.06 and NASA returned $1.21 per Dollar spend. So, of course DOD was starved by Bobo, and he practically deleted NASA, telling us to hitch a ride on one of those exploding Russia Rockets.

The exploding Russian rocket think was an issue. They need to work on that. Maybe the Iranians can give them a hand.

Actually, I think the best US investment ois the govt research labs, like Argon. Similarly, the NIH. The entire field of medicine is pretty heavily dependent on it, and most of the time you can learn more fromthe NIH website than form your doctor. Also, there are many marvelous inventions at govt labs waiting to be implemented. It would be nice to see a matching grant program for implementing ideas that have already been invented.

Quote:This fluff has no place on the PRIORITY LIST of balancing the Budget and PAYING DOWN OBAMA'S DEBT.
The best way to address this in the Budget is to delete the Department of Educamation by eliminating it's funding.

I have issues with it, but I think the US has been very lax on education. I agree with the Soviet spy I posted. We've fallen into a false sense of security calling gender studies or race studies an education. Everyone doesn't have to study physics and chemistry, but if they don't, is it still an education? I mean, there are definitely a limited number of topics that comprise international competitive advantage and result in advancements for America. It's in the interests of the govt to invest in having a more practically educated population. Something competitive with Europe, or China, India. I am also distressed by this reliance of young people on calculators. this shouldn't be an acceptable way to test mathematical abilities. But govt. spending on education also shouldn't be used to line anyone's pockets. It should be like medicare: people should be reimbursed in accordance with what they actually spend.

I sincerely believe anyone can choose to be not dumb, study, and then follow a line of study that is constructive and will help themselves and their country, and then should be able to get govt assistance if there is money available. We have state and federal programs, and I used them in order to go to college.

As for the debt, as I said, do away with that which you can. It's not all Obama's, it's been a problem for a while.

Half of it is Obama's. More than Half of it is The Dems in office from Jan 2007 until now.

It's been f'ed for a while. perscription d was 2006, energy policy was f'ed after '05. I think clinton budgets were pretty good, in spite of not liking the result.

Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

There ws no competing constitutionalist issue - they agreed that the Federation should protect the borders of the Federation from those outside the borders, not having anything to do with patrolling the borders within the Federation. Good that you admit to your failed logic.

JSF,

re Mexico, it's an issue. US interference in Mexican sovereignty is also an issue. (fast and furious, etc. ignoring how we got new mexico in the first place.) If fed troops are in NM, that's a violation of NM rights. States have their own immigration policies. Even West Virginia has an immigration policy. I know both parties in Texas oppose the national policy, and also California. I think a solution should be worked out, like a state residency permit, the right to live and work in Texas, for example. But if I were one of those former mexican states, it would bug me to have federal agents harrassing my spanish speaking population. I'd consider it a federal overreach.

Quote:So there are the core sectors which need to have budget increases, or immunity from reduction.

Oh, he can scuttle the whole federal govt for all I care. If Ford lays off workers, they don't get to scuttle the pension plan. Same here. If we owe things to the VA, etc, that still has to be settled, even if it's just a promise, because people took those jobs.

Quote:which goes into the General Fund, and then Dems steal from the General Fund, and like all Ponzi Schemes, there comes a time when the suckers lose out. There has never been a SS Lockbox. The SocSec has never been fully funded through any FICA or other contribution - it is strictly paid out as a bribe from Dems to gullible voters. We don't need this hokum now.

Then get rid of the tax. But they're stuck together. Can't just collect the tax and then do whatever with the money.

Quote:WHAT??? You agree it has never worked and will never work, and then say we should start making it work now? THAT is not sane.

It's a tax. it's collected on the grounds that it will be paid back. it's not, but it has to go in some way toward what it's collected for, or the tax needs to go. try convincing a govt to get rid of a tax.

Quote:State programs are fine, just keep it completely out of the FEDERAL BUDGET.

Unless you want to take the FICA money and allocate it rather than have a national program.

Quote:There is no tax levied for them - there is no accounting formula, flow of accountable funds. That is a fantasy, stop sticking your head in the sand.

No, it's not. FICA is a 15% payroll tax. It's not realistic to call it an investment program because you can't opt out of it and it won't be paid back, at least, not at a profit.

Quote:Now you are on track.
How do you plan on "renegotiating" it? You asking Trump to loan out the Grand Canyon to China for better lending rates? Or what?

Debt falls into a couple of categories. First, there's money that we borrowed.

Like from China. The answer to that is we pay it back.

Quote:NOW you are catching on. WE need to pay down the Federal Debt. To do that we need to eliminate the Federal Budget Deficit, reduce the Federal Budget, reduce the Federal Spending, allow the Revenues to increase and overtake the spending.

you might hate this suggestion, but if you want a solution that fixes this problem, there's a really simple one: grant M4 issuing power on a 1:1. I mean, we already have the M2 fractional reserve lending on M1 at 10:1 which is absurd. If we allow that to be packaged and resold at cents on the dollar, as we did, and still do, then the integrity of the USD internationally is shot anyway.

I get that this f's the USD. OTOH, it's F'ed already. I say, do it, and introduce a new currency, like an US-based M0 coinage, that can be used for domestic tax free commerce only. Def. not assign that status to M4, like krugman suggested, because that's completely inverting the situation, and granting power and privilege to the debt holders over the american people.

and

Quote:Half of it is Obama's. More than Half of it is The Dems in office from Jan 2007 until now.

So maybe you'll like this better. Obama's 0% loan program and bailouts represent many trillion theoretically owed to the US. For anything not specifically negotiated, pawn off the M4 debt to them. They owe us, we owe the bond holders etc.

I think for this to work you have to give everyone a chance to settle. First on that chain would be anyone who actually gave us money, whether it's a us bond holder or the chinese govt. next, anyone who ended up at the arrange from some exchange of good faith. last in line would be those who received federal handouts on the scale of the debt they hold, and interagency loans. i put the agencies last because their inability to use their allocated money for their own purposes for which the money was allotted to them is a sign they shouldn't have the money. It might stop agencies from handing out money to non-democratically determined expenditures in the future.

okay i'm shooting in the dark here, but you seen anyone in dc with a solution?

It's been f'ed for a while. perscription d was 2006, energy policy was f'ed after '05. I think clinton budgets were pretty good, in spite of not liking the result.

Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

There ws no competing constitutionalist issue - they agreed that the Federation should protect the borders of the Federation from those outside the borders, not having anything to do with patrolling the borders within the Federation. Good that you admit to your failed logic.

JSF,

re Mexico, it's an issue. US interference in Mexican sovereignty is also an issue. (fast and furious, etc. ignoring how we got new mexico in the first place.) If fed troops are in NM, that's a violation of NM rights. States have their own immigration policies. Even West Virginia has an immigration policy. I know both parties in Texas oppose the national policy, and also California. I think a solution should be worked out, like a state residency permit, the right to live and work in Texas, for example. But if I were one of those former mexican states, it would bug me to have federal agents harrassing my spanish speaking population. I'd consider it a federal overreach.

Quote:So there are the core sectors which need to have budget increases, or immunity from reduction.

Oh, he can scuttle the whole federal govt for all I care. If Ford lays off workers, they don't get to scuttle the pension plan. Same here. If we owe things to the VA, etc, that still has to be settled, even if it's just a promise, because people took those jobs.

Quote:which goes into the General Fund, and then Dems steal from the General Fund, and like all Ponzi Schemes, there comes a time when the suckers lose out. There has never been a SS Lockbox. The SocSec has never been fully funded through any FICA or other contribution - it is strictly paid out as a bribe from Dems to gullible voters. We don't need this hokum now.

Then get rid of the tax. But they're stuck together. Can't just collect the tax and then do whatever with the money.

Quote:WHAT??? You agree it has never worked and will never work, and then say we should start making it work now? THAT is not sane.

It's a tax. it's collected on the grounds that it will be paid back. it's not, but it has to go in some way toward what it's collected for, or the tax needs to go. try convincing a govt to get rid of a tax.

Quote:State programs are fine, just keep it completely out of the FEDERAL BUDGET.

Unless you want to take the FICA money and allocate it rather than have a national program.

Quote:There is no tax levied for them - there is no accounting formula, flow of accountable funds. That is a fantasy, stop sticking your head in the sand.

No, it's not. FICA is a 15% payroll tax. It's not realistic to call it an investment program because you can't opt out of it and it won't be paid back, at least, not at a profit.

Quote:Now you are on track.
How do you plan on "renegotiating" it? You asking Trump to loan out the Grand Canyon to China for better lending rates? Or what?

Debt falls into a couple of categories. First, there's money that we borrowed.

Like from China. The answer to that is we pay it back.

Quote:NOW you are catching on. WE need to pay down the Federal Debt. To do that we need to eliminate the Federal Budget Deficit, reduce the Federal Budget, reduce the Federal Spending, allow the Revenues to increase and overtake the spending.

you might hate this suggestion, but if you want a solution that fixes this problem, there's a really simple one: grant M4 issuing power on a 1:1. I mean, we already have the M2 fractional reserve lending on M1 at 10:1 which is absurd. If we allow that to be packaged and resold at cents on the dollar, as we did, and still do, then the integrity of the USD internationally is shot anyway.

I get that this f's the USD. OTOH, it's F'ed already. I say, do it, and introduce a new currency, like an US-based M0 coinage, that can be used for domestic tax free commerce only. Def. not assign that status to M4, like krugman suggested, because that's completely inverting the situation, and granting power and privilege to the debt holders over the american people.

and

Quote:Half of it is Obama's. More than Half of it is The Dems in office from Jan 2007 until now.

So maybe you'll like this better. Obama's 0% loan program and bailouts represent many trillion theoretically owed to the US. For anything not specifically negotiated, pawn off the M4 debt to them. They owe us, we owe the bond holders etc.

I think for this to work you have to give everyone a chance to settle. First on that chain would be anyone who actually gave us money, whether it's a us bond holder or the chinese govt. next, anyone who ended up at the arrange from some exchange of good faith. last in line would be those who received federal handouts on the scale of the debt they hold, and interagency loans. i put the agencies last because their inability to use their allocated money for their own purposes for which the money was allotted to them is a sign they shouldn't have the money. It might stop agencies from handing out money to non-democratically determined expenditures in the future.

okay i'm shooting in the dark here, but you seen anyone in dc with a solution?
Bond holdersd did not purchase 9 Trillion Dollars, or loan it to us - that was foreign countries, namely our enemies.

Bond holders did not purchase 9 Trillion Dollars, or loan it to us - that was foreign countries, namely our enemies.

As Ron Paul said: Then we have to pay our enemies back.

But you know numerically, it's bond holders over foreign debt by leaps and bounds. Still, we have to pay back China, who isn't really an enemy. If for no other reason than that if we don't, our word is worth nothing

Bond holders did not purchase 9 Trillion Dollars, or loan it to us - that was foreign countries, namely our enemies.

As Ron Paul said: Then we have to pay our enemies back.

But you know numerically, it's bond holders over foreign debt by leaps and bounds. Still, we have to pay back China, who isn't really an enemy. If for no other reason than that if we don't, our word is worth nothing

Care to lay out some numbers? Bonds Vs. Debt? And compare current bonds to bonds circa 2006, before the runaway budget bloat.

Care to lay out some numbers? Bonds Vs. Debt? And compare current bonds to bonds circa 2006, before the runaway budget bloat.

Maybe later. I've done this one before. I'm sure that Obama's fake money plan tapped the federal reserve because he spent a ton of effort on tweaking the rules and none at all on positive foreign relations.

Care to lay out some numbers? Bonds Vs. Debt? And compare current bonds to bonds circa 2006, before the runaway budget bloat.

Maybe later. I've done this one before. I'm sure that Obama's fake money plan tapped the federal reserve because he spent a ton of effort on tweaking the rules and none at all on positive foreign relations.

Nah, not until I run out of stuff that I get paid to do so I can suss out the flaws in federal accounting again.

The main point was, on the pie chart, it looks like foreign debt is 1/3, but the problem with that is that it's clumping as "the chinese" some guy in China who happens to have his money in US govt bonds together with the govt. in Beijing. This balance sheet shows it's about 65% national, so the foreign debt issue is not as serious as it looks. Meaning, we can pay off our national debt to China, and prevent China from influencing US policy. If Li Hiang is working for Price Waterhouse Cooper in Nanjing, and has some of his money in an account at Fidelity, in US govt bonds, what he's not doing is dictating US policy. He's probably an asset to our economy rather than a liabilty.

This means we can deal out this debt that threatens the independence of the national economy down to under $4 trillion. http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txtRenegotiate inter-agency loans and the FED, and then you're left with the bond holders, who aren't a pressing issue. If necessary, roll the bonds over. Just get rid of the destabilizing $4 trillion.

Nah, not until I run out of stuff that I get paid to do so I can suss out the flaws in federal accounting again.

The main point was, on the pie chart, it looks like foreign debt is 1/3, but the problem with that is that it's clumping as "the chinese" some guy in China who happens to have his money in US govt bonds together with the govt. in Beijing. This balance sheet shows it's about 65% national, so the foreign debt issue is not as serious as it looks. Meaning, we can pay off our national debt to China, and prevent China from influencing US policy. If Li Hiang is working for Price Waterhouse Cooper in Nanjing, and has some of his money in an account at Fidelity, in US govt bonds, what he's not doing is dictating US policy. He's probably an asset to our economy rather than a liabilty.

Quote:This means we can deal out this debt that threatens the independence of the national economy down to under $4 trillion. http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txtRenegotiate inter-agency loans and the FED, and then you're left with the bond holders, who aren't a pressing issue. If necessary, roll the bonds over. Just get rid of the destabilizing $4 trillion.

This certainly looks like "foreign investors" account for more of the debt than any other category. Which is what I expected to see.
So hopefully you can find some data to contradict this image.

Quote:Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
65% of those foreign investors are govts, and 35% are indidvudals holding bonds. The fact that they are not US citzens has nothing to do with the fact that they hold US Govt Bonds.

Ergo, 22% of the debt is foreign debt. This slice of the pie has gotten a lot larger recently.

Do you know the quantity or amount of foreign debt, by your definition, which existed in 2006?
And the same for "foreign investors" in 2006?

Found some decent charts.
Looks like 2006 Foreign Debt was 24% of the pie, or a little under $2 Trillion.
Most recent data shows currently 34%, and with Debt currently about $19.875 Trillion that would be a little under $7 Trillion of current foreign "investor" debt.

This means that in the past 10 years, Obama and the Democrats have been able to sell off about $5 Trillion of America, mostly to China. That would be about half of the $10 Trillion of debt that they created.

Quote:Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:
How does a country double it's massive financial deficit in a decade yet have the lowest quality of life for its citizens since after the Great Depression?

Very very easy: elect Democrats who are trying to destroy America.
Also, be careful about use of Deficit and Debt regarding U.S. Federal Budget. The Deficit may have doubled after the Rock The Vote election of Libtards in November 2006, but it took 10 years of profligate bloated spending to double the Debt, while working feverishly to keep the citizenry dependent upon Government subsistence (free government money in exchange for votes).

One of the major concerns we had about a Trump victory was his budget - that he would treat everything as a bargaining chip. So now reports are that he is willing to support Obamacare if the Dems will support his Wall across Mexico.

How badly did Trump just fail the other day?
New Spending Bill boosts funding for Planned Parenthood, Sanctuary Cities, H1B Visas, Obamacare funding and support, and almost everything else he campaigned on. Plus all of the reasonable Republicans who campaigned on the same - except they were serious, not planning to use these subjects as mere bargaining chips.
How are they supposed to get re-elected? What excuse do they have for screwing the voters who elected them?

Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
How badly did Trump just fail the other day?
New Spending Bill boosts funding for Planned Parenthood, Sanctuary Cities, H1B Visas, Obamacare funding and support, and almost everything else he campaigned on. Plus all of the reasonable Republicans who campaigned on the same - except they were serious, not planning to use these subjects as mere bargaining chips.
How are they supposed to get re-elected? What excuse do they have for screwing the voters who elected them?

Well now you're bringing up real issues against Trump. At the end of the day we're going to have to start asking ourselves if our vote even amounts to anything anymore.

I'm not well versed in Budget matters, but I can say this: the politicos better get this done right because 2018 is just around the corner.

It seems that the republican party stands more to lose since they have the majority in both houses. Turbulent times ahead!

SGG

Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I have not seen a lot of hubbub about this, but I did hear he had proposed one, or parts of one.

I have not posted this concept, and wanted to provide it for you all to ruminate upon, or comment upon.
What is a reasonable budget, at this point? How can we recover from so much excess from our addiction and bingeing of spending of the past 8-10 years?
We have gone a long time without any reasonable budget, just spending and borrowing ourselves into oblivion. How can any budget overcome the last 10 years of splurging? Any attempt to correct the trends will ignite the borrowing rate, and the onerous debt we have now (which seems like no big deal because the inflation rate and borrowing rate are miniscule) to a whallopping whale when the rate nudges up to very small.

So, my idea was to use the last reasonable budget as a yardmarker, a gauge to compare with, which would be the last budget which could have possibly been balanced. Although many spending priorities defeated this aim, all budgets since this have never even pretended to try.
This is the 2006 Federal Budget, before the Rock The Vote Libtards invaded DC and strived feverishly to wreck the economy and borrow our grandchildren's taxes to fund the snowflake welfare excesses now.
So, all of the Defense, NASA, and useful functions of Federal Government which have starved and whithered since then, should point out the highest funding they have had during the past 10 years, and that would be a good goal to have as their spending.
All of the bloated welfare, entitlements, government waste should be compared to their 2006 levels, and if they want more than that, need to justify it. They created their own inflation of their dollars, so the change in the dollar is not a valid excuse.

I am not sure if percentage of the total budget or dollar amount would be the better comparison. Perhaps both.

I have not checked out how Trump's budget compares yet.

His budget was one of my greatest fears of his reign - has he declared bankruptcy 4 or 5 times?

But some of what I have heard so far seems reassuring.

What say you?

Also, feel free to provide specifics of what amounts Trump has proposed, and comparison to FY 2006.

Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
How badly did Trump just fail the other day?
New Spending Bill boosts funding for Planned Parenthood, Sanctuary Cities, H1B Visas, Obamacare funding and support, and almost everything else he campaigned on. Plus all of the reasonable Republicans who campaigned on the same - except they were serious, not planning to use these subjects as mere bargaining chips.
How are they supposed to get re-elected? What excuse do they have for screwing the voters who elected them?

Well now you're bringing up real issues against Trump. At the end of the day we're going to have to start asking ourselves if our vote even amounts to anything anymore.

This is interesting. How can the media cover this? In order to help defeat Trump, they would need to point out that he has allowed to continue all of the government waste that the media loves, all of the Libtard delusional garbage. So, do the start reporting the truth, tripping on themselves, or continue their delusions knowing they will be helping Trump get re-elected?

Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
How badly did Trump just fail the other day?
New Spending Bill boosts funding for Planned Parenthood, Sanctuary Cities, H1B Visas, Obamacare funding and support, and almost everything else he campaigned on. Plus all of the reasonable Republicans who campaigned on the same - except they were serious, not planning to use these subjects as mere bargaining chips.
How are they supposed to get re-elected? What excuse do they have for screwing the voters who elected them?

Well now you're bringing up real issues against Trump. At the end of the day we're going to have to start asking ourselves if our vote even amounts to anything anymore.

This is interesting. How can the media cover this? In order to help defeat Trump, they would need to point out that he has allowed to continue all of the government waste that the media loves, all of the Libtard delusional garbage. So, do the start reporting the truth, tripping on themselves, or continue their delusions knowing they will be helping Trump get re-elected?

I think one of the only good things Obama did was decrease military spending. That's all going to be undone though if the fucking idiots in our government can't figure it out and let a bunch of our equipment fall into disrepair.

And now visiting reality: reportedly 2016 ended with GDP around 17,000 (Obama), and 2017 ended with 19,738 (Trump).

Which holds true to historical practice. Democrats always exaggerate or overestimate Revenues and downplay or underestimate Expenditures, and Conservative Republicans always underestimate Revenue projections and overestimate Expenditure projections (but Democrats then find some pork to fill in the difference).

I just noticed a change in a rule of thumb. In the past, a FY's Revenues was always more than the Outlays from the 2 years previous Budget cycle.
However, Obama managed to bloat spending, Debt, Deficit, and Unemployment so much than that 2 year rule is now 3 years, except 2022 (2025).

For the table in 2016, apparently Obamabots were forced to admit the reality that 2016 Revenue only increased $86 B, but insists upon pretending that Obamanomics will generate Revenue Increases after he departs of $308B, $255B, $195B, $251B, $226B, $184B, $193B, $228B, $234B, $258B from one year to the next.

The Revenue projections are reduced from the exaggerated amounts Obama assumed. Deficits upcoming are increased due to more realistic projections. The GDP for 2016 are revised down to the reality of Obamanomics.

Which holds true to historical practice. Democrats always exaggerate or overestimate Revenues and downplay or underestimate Expenditures, and Conservative Republicans always underestimate Revenue projections and overestimate Expenditure projections (but Democrats then find some pork to fill in the difference).

Take for example FY2016, the final full year under Obamanomics. Here the delusion projects that Revenues will be 3.68 Trillion. Every year that exaggerated projection must be curtailed to conform to the reality of the abysmal Obamanomics. The final data is that 3.268 Trillion was confiscated. That is a $412 Billion shortfall from the delusion that Obamination perpetrated, or about 12.5%.
The GDP was optimisticly projected to be 19.261 Trillion by the time Obama escaped. The reality was that Obamanomics only achieved 18.4 Trillion, $800 Billion less than the delusion projected, or about 4%. If Revenue Confiscation via Taxation is a function based upon GDP, then the Revenue figure should have also been only 4% low.
One pretense is that although Revenue increase from 2011 to 2012 should only be $166 Billion, the next cycle would jump $433 Billion. Then $313, $235, $230, and after he's gone $239 Billion.

Which holds true to historical practice. Democrats always exaggerate or overestimate Revenues and downplay or underestimate Expenditures, and Conservative Republicans always underestimate Revenue projections and overestimate Expenditure projections (but Democrats then find some pork to fill in the difference).

All FIREFLY graphics and photos on this page are copyright 2002-2012 Mutant Enemy, Inc., Universal Pictures, and 20th Century Fox.
All other graphics and texts are copyright of the contributors to this website.
This website IS NOT affiliated with the Official Firefly Site, Mutant Enemy, Inc., or 20th Century Fox.